2026-08-23 · 19 sources cited · all articles
An examination of the current regulatory framework reveals a complete absence of specific statutory thresholds, article numbers, or explicit ministerial decrees issued by Kominfo that legally compel private e-commerce platforms to implement mandatory web accessibility [12, 18, 7].
The primary regulatory instrument governing private electronic system providers (PSE Lingkup Privat) is the Regulation of the Minister of Communication and Informatics Number 5 of 2020 (Permenkominfo 5/2020) [18, 7]. However, an analysis of Permenkominfo 5/2020 demonstrates that its mandatory provisions are strictly administrative and content-focused rather than inclusive or accessibility-driven [18]. Specifically, the regulation mandates that private platform providers register via the Online Single Submission-Risk Based Approach (OSS-RBA) under Article 2, with non-compliance penalties outlined in Article 7 [18]. Furthermore, the framework imposes obligations regarding content moderation under Article 9 paragraph 3, requiring platforms to ensure their services do not host or disseminate prohibited content that violates laws, disturbs public order, or provides access to prohibited electronic information [18].
The sources contain no statutory requirements, articles, or enforcement mechanisms within Permenkominfo 5/2020 that mandate digital or web accessibility standards for individuals with disabilities on private e-commerce platforms [12, 18, 7]. While Bakti Kominfo focuses on increasing information and communication literacy and ICT infrastructure in 3T (outermost, frontier, lagging) regions—noting that digital accessibility for persons with disabilities has strong potential for development—this applies to public telecommunications accessibility initiatives rather than imposing legal mandates on private e-commerce companies [8]. Consequently, private e-commerce platforms operate in a regulatory vacuum concerning web accessibility, as Kominfo's current oversight under Permenkominfo 5/2020 remains strictly limited to registration compliance and content restriction [18, 7].
Kominfo exercises its general enforcement authority over digital services primarily through administrative oversight of Private Scope Electronic System Providers (PSE) under Regulation of the Minister of Communication and Informatics Number 5 of 2020 (Permenkominfo 5/2020) [18]. This framework grants the ministry powers to mandate registration via the Online Single Submission-Risk Based Approach (OSS-RBA) and enforce compliance regarding prohibited content under Article 9 [18]. Additionally, the ministry has moved to establish ministerial rules concerning Safe Harbor policies [3].
However, there is a total absence of explicit legal mechanisms or statutory thresholds within these existing provisions requiring private commercial e-commerce platforms to adopt mandatory web accessibility standards. While initiatives like Bakti Kominfo focus on information and communication literacy in 3T regions [8], Permenkominfo 5/2020 focuses strictly on registration mandates, law enforcement cooperation, data protection obligations [12], and content restrictions [18], rather than physical or digital accessibility retrofits for disabled users.
This creates a sharp conflict between regulatory enforcement theories and practical legal reality. Regulatory bodies maintain broad oversight tools over digital platforms [18], yet advocates face a complete lack of enforceable statutory backing to compel private e-commerce companies to implement web accessibility compliance. Consequently, legal liability for private platforms under current national law remains strictly tied to administrative registration [18] and content moderation [18], leaving digital accessibility entirely outside the scope of mandated enforcement.
Disability rights advocates demand absolute digital inclusion and fundamental access for citizens under national frameworks, pointing to initiatives like the Open Government Partnership commitment where adequate digital accessibility for persons with disabilities has excellent potential for development and direct economic impact [8]. They argue that inclusive infrastructure is a fundamental necessity rather than an optional commercial feature.
Conversely, compliance auditors and private e-commerce entities view accessibility obligations as an undefined, costly burden given the absence of clear legislative mandates. Based on the current regulatory structure of the Ministry of Communication and Informatics (Kominfo), such as Regulation Number 5 of 2020 concerning Private Scope Electronic System Providers (Permenkominfo 5/2020), the explicitly codified obligations are strictly limited to mandatory registration via the Online Single Submission-Risk Based Approach (OSS-RBA) [18] and restrictions on prohibited content under Article 9 [18].
The sources do not contain any statutory thresholds, article numbers, or explicit ministerial decrees issued by Kominfo that legally compel private e-commerce platforms to implement mandatory web accessibility retrofits. Consequently, private entities argue that imposing non-statutory burdens creates financial uncertainty, while advocates insist that administrative silence fails to fulfill the state's inclusive governance commitments.
The ongoing regulatory framework managed by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics (Kominfo) highlights a stark deadlock. On one side, digital rights advocates continuously push for mandatory digital accessibility standards to ensure platforms accommodate persons with disabilities [8]. On the other side, regulators operate under statutory mandates that fail to cite explicit, concrete legal backing for web accessibility enforcement on private e-commerce platforms [12, 18]. Permenkominfo 5/2020 strictly governs private Electronic System Providers (PSE Lingkup Privat) regarding registration via OSS-RBA, law enforcement cooperation, and the restriction of prohibited content under Article 9, but it remains silent on web accessibility mandates [12, 18].
This absence of explicit statutory thresholds leaves private e-commerce platforms operating in a state of high regulatory uncertainty [12]. Without definitive accessibility rules enshrined in ministerial decrees, compliance remains entirely voluntary rather than legally binding. While Bakti Kominfo focuses on ICT literacy and infrastructure in 3T areas [8], and broader legal compliance is enforced through UU ITE frameworks [16], private platforms face no immediate statutory penalties for failing to implement accessibility retrofits. Consequently, advocates cannot leverage existing text in Permenkominfo 5/2020 to compel corporate compliance, leaving the intersection of digital accessibility and private e-commerce regulation unresolved [12, 18].
---
_Paid in Full — Jesus is God ✝️_